Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson created a politeness theory grounded on humans’ basic need to form stable relationships. According to this theory, politeness is universal across all cultures and languages. Different strategies can be used to achieve Politeness; Strategies such as indirect language techniques, hedging and polite titles, which allow speakers to convey messages while protecting others image and maintaining social harmony.
In Chapter Two (Section 4) of my book “The Dynamic Pattern in the Infinite Circle – An Introduction to Ethnocide,” I talked about how Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory holds that individuals often put both themselves and others at risk by engaging in acts that damage both of their images. According to this theory, people possess a need to rectify damaged images, yet certain actions pose threats against speakers or listeners by colliding with their wants and needs; these acts could potentially jeopardize either the positive or negative image of listeners; individuals must understand when actions threaten both speaker and listeners: distinguishing between actions that endanger the speaker’s image and those that put the listener’s image at risk (Brown & Levinson, 1978).
Politeness theory aims at looking into how people can minimize face-threatening acts, as well as distinguishing between the speaker’s image and the listener’s image, which are interrelated but independent and can affect each other. Thus, it is essential for people to consider that whatever they do may be affecting all these three parties. Politeness theory gives a way to understand how people can handle social interactions better by stressing the need to maintain both images without losing any.
Actions can threaten the Listener’s Image
In “The Dynamic Pattern in the Infinite Circle – An Introduction to Ethnocide,” I also specify different activities of “The politeness theory of Brown and Levinson” that are dangerous to the image of a listener. These activities include:
- Actions that can cause a threat to the listener’s bad or negative image, which is connected with their independence. This group involves actions that restrict listeners’ freedom of action, instructions, requests, advice, threats, warnings or reminders. This category also comprises certain speech acts where speakers say something about future positive action for the benefit of listeners, such as offers or promises – together with any undesired expression of envy, admiration, or excessive praise expressed towards them or their possessions; these can also threaten a negative image of listeners.
- Actions that can cause a threat to the listener’s positive image as part of their engagement. These are actions which imply that the speaker does not care about any form of scolding, blaming, or uncontrolled expressions of emotions, and it might be praying by himself/herself inappropriate topics being raised by the listen(ers) or simply disregarding what they say; this behavior spoils the positive images on the listener while having long term effects on speaker-listener relationship.
Actions can threaten the Speaker’s image
However, Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory further takes into account the actions that mainly endanger the Speaker’s image. Alongside actions threatening the hearer’s image, politeness theory also recognizes actions that primarily threaten the speaker’s image; these encompass:
- Actions that can cause a threat to the speaker’s negative face or self-construal of autonomy. These may include doing things they do not want to do, such as saying thank you and sorry to people they don’t know, agreeing with suggestions without thinking through them, and promising to do something in the future that one does not really mean. These acts could ruin their independence and hurt their bad face.
- Actions that can cause a threat to the speaker’s positive face due to involvement. Such category contains acts like an apology, accepting compliments or paying compliments back, confessing guilt or taking responsibility for oneself down by showing humility and inconsistency or becoming physically out of control, thereby damaging one’s reputation as well as social position on a positive scale, making it difficult for a person to have future encounters with same group/individuals.
According to the politeness theory of Brown and Levinson, people employ multiple strategies in their effort to save face and maintain social harmony, which depends on how close a speaker is to the hearer, the power relationships between them, and the severity of the act done against each other’s face. It emphasizes that during social interactions, speakers and listeners should maintain a balance between themselves. A slight invasion into either side could have severe negative implications on the speaker-listener relationship; hence, individuals are required to be keen so as not to ruin the images of both partners when being polite. How successful a politeness strategy is often depends on how listeners interpret the speaker’s intentions; thus, if such intentions are seen by a listener as kind-hearted and respectful, then this politeness strategy tends to work, preventing threats from damaging the listener’s face, but when listener perceives that intention as lacking concern or showing no respect then there can occur failure in reducing the threat to listener’s image through such an approach.
Politeness Strategies
In Chapter Two (Section 4) of my book “The Dynamic Pattern in the Infinite Circle – An Introduction to Ethnocide” emphasizes on the Speakers’ degree and choice of politeness strategies in any given social situation are determined by several variables, including social distance, relative social power, and coercion levels involved in the action. Social distance refers to how familiar or intimate two speakers are, while social power is measured by how much one participant imposes their will upon another participant; finally, the degree of coercion is measured based on whether an action reduces freedom for listeners and creates pressure on them. The greater this cost for listeners, the higher the threat against their image, and the more polite the speaker will likely be.
In Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, it is argued that it is not the variables themselves but the assumptions of the participants about these variables that form the basis of this theory. They argue that in any social context, individuals have certain assumptions on how variables defame them. Consequently, based on a person’s familiarity standpoint within the social cultural norms they operate under, individuals adopt politeness patterns respectively out of their familiarity with such norms. These researchers believe that these universal mechanisms are found across cultures to meet social needs while protecting face.
According to the theory, avoiding coercion is one way of expressing negative politeness or politeness of independence. The model provides for several strategies, including indirect expressions, which leave more options open to listeners – indirect expression is viewed as polite since it reduces threats posed to listeners’ faces; hedging, like in cases where speakers can express uncertainty; use of questions which tone down requests or suggestions and so forth. However, the success of all these strategies depends on how listeners interpret the speaker’s intentions and contextual factors during communication.
Your communication skills will be greatly enhanced, and your interactions will be improved when you become proficient in the theory and use of politeness. Identifying potential face threats to both you as a speaker and the listener allows for more efficient and empathetic tailoring of interactions. To attain unity and create a good relationship, it is necessary to have the skill of being able to utilize politeness in different contexts such as workplace meetings, with friends, or social places. A more comprehensive approach to these ideas can be found in my book “The Dynamic Pattern in the Infinite Circle – An Introduction to Ethnocide,” which also provides a means of improving communication skills. This goes on to explore these theories further by sharing real-life examples that will help you communicate effectively.
Reference
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.